ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2023
Evaluation of the fully automated urine particle analyzer UF-1500.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The urine examination: a modern technological test with a very ancient history.Advances in laboratory medicine · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the fully automated urine particle analyzer UF-1500.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2023Article
- Comparison of Automated Urinalysis Parameter Atyp.C and Urine Cytology for Detecting Bladder CarcinomaCancer diagnosis & prognosisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThis study primarily assessed the performance of the UF-1500, the novel and compact model of the fully automated urine particle analyzer and evaluated its performance against the existing UF-5000 instrument. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 648 residual urine specimens were randomly collected and examined using both the UF-1500 and UF-5000 instruments as well as manual microscopy. For each parameter, the concordance rates and detection accuracy of the UF-1500 against manual microscopy were compared with the UF-5000.
resultsThe concordance rates between the UF-1500 and manual microscopy were 75.3%-98.5%. The UF-1500 concordance rates within one group agreement were observed to be >90%, for all parameters except for YLCs. The differences within one group agreement between the UF-1500 and manual microscopy were insignificant, in comparison to the UF-5000, with exceptions noted for ECs and YLCs. The sensitivity and specificity of the UF-1500 for RBCs, WBCs, Squa.ECs, and BACT exceeded 80%, while the positive predictive values of ECs and CASTs were below 70%.
conclusionThe UF-1500 exhibited a performance that was comparable to the existing instrument, the UF-5000, and was suitable to be introduced in clinical practice. For the samples with suspected false-positive or false-negative results, a manual microscopic examination is required for accurate testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.